Nowadays, firms face uncertain external environments, such as demand, political situations, and pandemics, among competitors, and that is why need consistency of quality performance of products to complete the competition. Several big food and beverage manufacturers in Indonesia supply ice cream products to the market and seized the same shared market. PT. XYZ is one of the food manufacturers to be best in operational excellence by reducing defects in product as big problems to this company. As daily report production show that defects of the finished product of ice cream especially stick ice product very high due to improperly filling process in one of the machines. Annual losses of the stick in the filling process raised to 60600 pcs per year and equivalence with IDR 35,299,500 exclude the price of the mix (work in process) attached in those sticks. High defects in this process make production costs high and impact manufacturing performance. This study aims to find the root cause of the defects and then analyze problems that occurred by DMAIC methodology six sigma approached as a tool to improve. Six sigma approached to these problems comprise define problems, measures, analyze, improvement and control. The main causes of the defects were several factors, especially from technical factors such as improper stick position and brine as chemical compositions. Analyze step used to test hypothesis testing by two proportions in Minitab software. The purpose of this step was to find where the hypothesis of variables as critical factors. This research uses DOE (Design of Experiment) because more than two variables are identified as critical factors. This research resulted in an increased sigma level from 3.23 to 4.3. it means that the capability process of filling machines being improved and can reduce the number of defects and reduced losses of the quality annual cost to IDR 1,853,299,500.

1.
S.
Saumyaranjan
and
Y.
Sudhir
,
Procedia Manuf.
21
,
8
(
2018
).
2.
T.
Costa
,
F. J. G.
Silva
, and
L.
Pinto
,
Procedia Manuf.
13
,
11
(
2017
).
3.
F.
Gleeson
,
P.
Coughlan
,
L.
Goodman
,
A.
Newell
, and
V.
Hargaden
,
Procedia CIRP
,
81
,
6
(
2019
).
4.
J.
Christyanti
,
Procedia-Social Behav. Sci.
65
,
306
(
2012
).
5.
C.
Wasage
,
A.
Signal
, and
G.
Electric
,
J. Mod. Account. Audit.
12
(
4
),
16
(
2016
).
6.
M.
Yusr
,
A.
Rahm
, and
S. M. M.
Sanuri
,
Procedia-Social Behav. Sci.
65
,
8
(
2012
).
7.
M.
Ertürk
,
M.
Tuerdi
, and
A.
Wujiabudula
, in
Sect. Turkey Procedia-Social Behav. Sci.
229
(
2016
),
52
444
.
8.
A.
Pugna
,
R.
Negrea
, and
S.
Miclea
,
Procedia-Social Behav. Sci.
221
,
16
(
2016
).
9.
S. M.
Saad
and
M. A.
Khamkham
,
Procedia Manuf.
17
,
94
(
2018
).
10.
A. K.
Singh
and
D.
Khanduja
,
Procedia Mater. Sci.
5
,
5
(
2014
).
11.
G. N.
Kumar
and
R.
Pezhinkattil
,
Procedia Eng
,
97
,
88
(
2014
).
12.
S.
Indrawati
and
M.
Ridwansyah
,
Procedia Manuf
,
4
,
34
(
2015
).
13.
M.
Tingström
,
Possibilities and challenges in combining Six Sigma and continuous improvements
(
2013
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.